Apple Allegedly Sought Non-Poaching Deal With Palm

theodp writes "A Bloomberg report that Apple CEO Steve Jobs proposed a possibly illegal truce with Palm against poaching their respective employees is sure to pique the interest of the US Department of Justice, which already is investigating whether Google, Yahoo, Apple, Genentech and other tech companies conspired to keep others from stealing their top talent. 'Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal,' former Palm CEO Ed Colligan reportedly told Jobs in August 2007." The article notes that Apple was probably reacting to Palm's hiring of Jon Rubenstein, who had been instrumental in developing the iPod and went on to spearhead the Pre for Palm (and has now become Palm's chairman and CEO). "It's the story about the importance of charismatic engineers," said veteran Silicon Valley forecaster Paul Saffo. "People don't work for Palm. They work for Jon Rubinstein. One has to wonder how Steve Jobs ever let Jon Rubinstein leave."

Comments

Re:At Apple, employees just work

[Cornelius the Great]

Apple wasn't looking to screw over their employees. They merely wished to make the Apple employment experience more simple and elegant. With other employers, employees must make complicated and confusing decisions about raises and other job opportunities, resolve conflicts between competing employers,

By colluding with competitors? If a certain employee is so valuable, then Apple should be willing to compensate the employee enough to stay there. Not make backroom deals with other companies.

At Apple, it's a simple "You work here" interface.

And what if you quit, get fired, or laid off? Why should some backroom deal between Jobs and some other CEOs prevent you from landing on your feet?

This goes beyond non-compete clauses. At least with a non-compete, the employees sign a form acknowledging trade secrets and agreeing not to work for competitors. Deals like these, they have no say or control over.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal...

[gad_zuki!]

Logic 101: absense of proof is not proof of absense. Lots of rich people give anonymously, especially private people like Jobs. From the exact article you linked but evidently did not bother to fully read or comprehend:

Jobs' wife is also absent from these philanthropic lists, although she has made dozens of political donations totaling tens of thousands of dollars to the Democrats, according to the Open Secrets database.

Of course, Jobs and his wife may be giving enormous sums of money to charity anonymously. If they are funneling cash to various causes in private, their names wouldn't show up on any lists, regardless of the size of their gifts.

For a person as private as Jobs, who shuns any publicity about his family life, this seems credible. If so, however, this would make Jobs virtually unique among moguls. Richard Jolly, chairman of Giving USA Foundation, said not all billionaires give their money away, but a lot do, and most do not do it quietly.

"We see it over and over again," he said. "Very wealthy individuals do support the organizations and institutions they believe in."

Using your logic I can say, "Ive never seen him shit, so he must be a robot or an alien, as all humans need to shit."

Re:Jobs doing something illegal...

[gad_zuki!]

>but here is a pretty good explanation of why I don't think Jobs is giving hardly anything.

No, its bullshit character attacks based on a lack of evidence.

Unlike you, I worked in a large well-known national non-profit. I would see multi-million dollar donations come in via anonymous. Because of my position at the time I could see who they really came from. Lots of millionaires who just want some privacy in their lives. People like Jobs.

Turning privacy and modesty into "ZOMG HE DOESNT GIVE" is a dick move and I'm calling you out on it.